Posted on 02/04/2024 5:01:26 PM PST by McGruff
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Sunday walked back her previous comment that Texas could secede from the US if it decided to do so.
“No. According to the Constitution, they can’t,” Haley told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked whether she thought the Lone Star State had a right to secede.
“What I do think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about seceding for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that,” she said. “But what I will say is … Where’s that coming from? That’s coming from the fact that people don’t think that government is listening to them.”
Her comments mark a turnaround from remarks she made last week, when Haley told radio host Charlemagne tha God that “if Texas decides they want to do that, they can do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Abraham Lincoln was not holy and in this case was afu legally.
There is no Constitutional requirement to relinquish a right to reconsideration of union, Especially by states subsequient to the original thirteen.
As a matter of fact there was a situation of some NE states possibly deciding to leave the Union in the early 18teens, this when many original framers were still alive. It was not addressed Constitutionally as it wasn’t even considered relavent, (”Have youse lost your minds,we just said and died to claim our God given right to self determination?)
true today as well re: the totally sovereign Republic of
Texas joining agreement IN ABSENCE OF CLEARLY SPECIFIED indications is VOID of such requirements.
“Now youse can’t leave.”
Or any other state. December 20, 1860.
The word is “Secession” and has a distinct meaning.
As does ‘succession’ usually applied to next in line in leadership positions provided for in corporate or governmental documents.
New England tried and began proceedings sooner than that. It’s a matter of historical fact.
Just proves just how easy it is deceive the people back then, too.
Because Texas has succeeded where so many other states have not. Success breeds more success. Winning.
Texas already SECEDED from the Union in 1861 joining the Confederate States of America. History. Secession.
Excellent comment. The United States is composed of many States who voluntarily made a contract with the entity of the Union of the States. A contract which may be determined to be violated, abrograted, ignored— and as such the State may withdraw. Secession of the CSA was only stopped by FORCE of the remaining States of the contract. And the War decided nothing about the legality of Secession, but did describe the lengths to which alliances will go to force membership.
For purposes of this post if they are not resident of a State succeeding then if a person has a valid SS number and they have worked for at least 10 years then they can receive SS retirement benefits no matter where they are in the world and they are not a citizen.
I spend a lot of time in SA Asia, and I know lots of folks there drawing social security bases on paying into SS for years, but they are not from a State that has succeeded.
In the event Texas was to succeed you can bet the first response of the Congress would be to refuse to pay Social Security benefits to those who had a residence in Texas and additionally to refuse to fund benefits for anyone who had got at least 10 years of work if they were listed as a resident of Texas before succeeding.
As my original post the economic consequences of Texas succeeding are the problem...
There about four million 400 hundred thousand people in Texas drawing social security. Taking the average payment of about $1850 per month that comes out to 100 billion a year. Additionally puling the military installations out of the state will be at least that amount....
“In the event Texas was to succeed you can bet the first response of the Congress would be to refuse to pay Social Security benefits to those who had a residence in Texas . . .”
In the event Texas was to secede the first response of the empire would be to attack and kill economic and political opponents.
The empire is unwilling to lose control of one dollar, or one person. That is the way it has been; that is the way it will always be.
Don’t you think the COUNTRY of Texes would make good on Social security? Hell yes and do it better.
Politics has always been about power.
Only fools give it up willingly.
The COUNTRY of Texes would make good on all social security.
It depends—for example on whether it is an expensive and lengthy hot war or a peaceful settlement is quickly reached.
Nope..unless they become a big deficit spender like the US..
The speech was Lincoln’s last on 11 April 1865, and was disliked and distrusted for the very reasons you state- nothing but clever word usage and suppositions— which served to tick off the Radical Republicans who wanted Southern States seized and re-made (opportunities for corrupt theft of property abounded in these crazed people, whom Lincoln tilted towards as they had just enable his re-election without the Southern States voting, and despite all efforts he made not to acceded to a political reality vs. McClellan Democrats etc.) Also apparently John Wilkes Booth who was witnessed to say he’d “see him through” over this new “citizenry” and suffrage (the vote). Radicals were running things.
the speech is here:https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/abraham-lincolns-last-public-address
Booth’s sister wrote a book about her brother: “The Unlocked Book”— quite something, withheld from publishing until 1936.
But in 1869 in Texas v. White Congress ruled the Confederacy had acted unconstitutionally.
I don't know about that . . . our founding fathers came out of a monarchy and insisted on creating a Republic.
The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights effectively redistributed power to the people in several sovereign states and away from the central throne.
I would not call our founders fools for fighting to decentralize political power.
“But in 1869 in Texas v. White Congress ruled the Confederacy had acted unconstitutionally.”
Victor’s justice: a distorted application of justice to the defeated party by the victorious party after an armed conflict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.